Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Rural areas are habitats for people. And these people who live there have every right to quality of life, which may be different than in the cities, but must not be worse. People in rural areas have the right to healthcare, they have the right to safe roads, public transport, fast internet, child care centres, schools, retirement homes and much more. People in rural areas also have the right and probably the duty to operate the economy. Only if farmers and SMEs are in rural areas will there be jobs. And without jobs, there are no families in rural areas. Therefore, it must stop that people from cities tell the people in rural areas every day what they are doing and what they are not allowed to do. Rural spaces don't need cheese bells decided by others, among which every entrepreneurial idea often stifles. It is also a good thing that we are addressing the situation with the big predators in connection with this report. Many pay homage to a completely misunderstood idea of biodiversity and even accept or welcome the fact that wolves and bears walk through our villages and tear down farm animals there. We need answers here too. If the text is adopted tomorrow as we have prepared it in committee, then that is an answer. Rural spaces remain vital when people are ready and have the chance to shape them. I hope this report is a good step forward.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In 1992, when the Habitats Directive placed the wolf and other large predators – the brown bear, the lynx – under protection in the EU, these species were practically extinct in the European Union. Today, 30 years later, this policy has been successful. All these species are back in the habitats of the European Union – but unfortunately they also create problems. Coexistence between grazing animals and large predators is difficult and probably impossible in some rooms, such as alpine pastures. And all those who keep talking about these beautiful projects – including you, Commissioner, just said that – and say that there is great coexistence, I ask: Where are these? I've been asking about it for years, I haven't found it. And I have the impression that they simply exist more in the minds of those who do not have to take care of their animals day and night or who have to clean up a carnage after an attack. The completely protected wolf is confronted by the completely unprotected sheep or goat. Today's protection status is simply no longer necessary in many regions. We now have stable populations, and they will continue to exist even with a weakened protection, as experience shows. And we will only get a broad acceptance for these species if we also look these facts in the eye and do not prevent any management with ideological dreaming. And finally: Of course, there is also a need for increased commitment to coexistence and herd protection. That costs, and that cannot be paid for only by the common agricultural policy. If our citizens want wolves, bears and lynxes in our forests, then they have to pay for them and not pay the farmers these costs. They then have to stand up with their own tax money for the costs and also for the damages.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Thank you, Commissioner, for your efforts in this communication, which you have now presented. And I think, especially as far as the medium and long-term solution to the problem is concerned, you have given some very valuable inputs. Yesterday, your DG AGRI staff presented a terrifying number to us in the Committee on Agriculture. If we add up the additional costs incurred by farmers as a result of higher energy costs and higher fertiliser costs, we will reach EUR 45 billion this year. This is, so to speak, the entire CAP. This means that these additional costs burn everything that we spend as a CAP, and the few millions that are in this communication then give little meat. This figure shows where the real problem is. I think the real problem is that fertilizers are too expensive. And you make it a bit easy when you just say: Yes, energy costs are high, and that's why fertilizers are expensive. I'll give you a few numbers. For example, a large German company, Kali and Salz, last year brought profit from a loss of 1.8 billion to a profit of 2.2 billion compared to 2020. Borealis has doubled the profit. Yara paid out a special dividend two weeks ago because you couldn't get rid of the money, and also admitted in the report that you bought cheap urea and ammonium worldwide and wasted the farmers in Europe expensively. And that's where we have to go. There are excess profits, there are speculative bubbles, there are oligopolies. And I think that if we really want to tackle this issue, then we must also approach this issue and see how we can bring down the overall costs in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Of course, the European Union needs more of its own energy. And, of course, agriculture can and must help to achieve this goal. Biogas plants can make an important contribution, and they can also promote circularity in the fertilizer sector. But the Commission's proposal to move money from the CAP, from the common agricultural policy, to REPowerEU simply makes no sense. This money is already earmarked within the framework of the common agricultural policy, which has strategic plans. And Member States are already welcome – and should be able to do so – to support biogas installations under the second pillar of the CAP. By the way, they also create an additional income for the farmers. But if this money now goes to REPowerEU, then it is no longer going to the farms. It goes to the big energy companies in Europe. Farmers are being deprived of money. There is no incentive for a circular economy. Slurry is no longer fermented, probably more corn. And that's why we should leave it all behind and really shouldn't encourage this shifting of money.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Access to healthy food is not a luxury, it is a human right. And it remains our obligation to do everything we can to ensure that this right belongs to all people in the world and that no one has to suffer from hunger or even die from it. And we were actually on the right track. In recent years, hunger in the world has hardly been a question of the availability of food, but it has been a result of conflicts and crises that have often made distribution impossible. However, since the supply from Ukraine – one of the world’s largest food exporters – has failed, we can see how quickly we can slip back into a problem of availability. Less supply drives up prices. Many countries can no longer keep up financially. And that is why we now need short-term financial measures to help these states. And I think the financial facility proposed in Bali at the G20 meeting is urgently necessary and meaningful. But we also have to think about how we want to feed people worldwide in the medium and long term. And this will only be possible if agriculture is at the same time sustainable and also intensive and productive. Those who believe that we can expand agriculture here in Europe until there is no production left must simply be aware that with such a policy they are promoting hunger in the world. That is why we need an agriculture that is at the same time progress-oriented, knowledge-based, sustainable, intensive and productive.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, fertilizer prices are currently extremely high, and not only since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The rise in prices had already begun about a year ago. This is also due to the fact that supply chains did not function fully after the COVID-19 pandemic. But of course, as you said, Commissioner, it also has to do with exploding gas prices and exploding energy prices. The impact is fatal – on the one hand at farm level, where costs increase very quickly and where there is a combination of high costs of fertilisers combined with high costs of energy, but also on the consumer side. We have now a year behind us, where we had very high costs on farms, high fertiliser prices and a very dry year. As a result, for example, we have produced 25% less corn in the European Union than in the previous year. We will see the impact on food safety in the coming months. Of course, the problem must also be solved in the long term. We have to take note that we have a high concentration of animals in some parts of Europe and that in other parts of Europe the animals have become extinct, so to speak, so that we also lack a completely normal circular economy. But I think – and I am very happy, Commissioner, that you mentioned this – communication is needed. It needs a strategy and I hope that it will not only stay in communication, but that there will also be money for it, so that we invest in knowledge, in research, in systems to bring fertilizer production back to Europe, in order above all to bring knowledge back to Europe on how to make an improved circular economy of fertilizer, because I think that we have now learned that this dependence, which we have on global production, does not work in this form.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Behind us lies one of the hottest and driest summers our continent has ever experienced. The consequences for agriculture will be felt. The harvest of autumn fruits, especially corn, will be historically deep in Europe. From this it is necessary to draw lessons. We need investments in irrigation technologies, in storage tanks. We also need better, even cross-border, water management. We need a sustainable, economical use of water and also new technologies such as the use of treated wastewater for irrigation. But we also need modern breeding methods, because this gives us the chance to grow plants that are more suitable for drought, and we finally need the legal basis for this. Within the framework of the common agricultural policy, we would actually have the opportunity to better protect farmers from situations such as those we are currently experiencing. The insurance offers exist, but are unfortunately used far too little throughout Europe. Above all, however, we should also learn from the situation this summer. A war with our neighbours and a dry year put our food safety in dire straits in Europe. Food prices are currently the main drivers of inflation. That is why we have to do everything we can to guarantee food safety in the European Union and to refrain from anything that puts it at risk. We do not do consumers any good if we make new legislation that makes food production in Europe more difficult and we outsource our production. That's why this year's summer must be a warning call. Food safety is not self-sufficient in Europe, but it is existential. And we have to take care of it and not endanger it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Forests are part of our landscape, our cultural and natural areas, they are economic areas, shelters, recreation areas, core cells of biodiversity. But for forests to be able to guarantee this diversity, they need attention, they need protection and care. The responsibility for this lies with the Member States and local authorities, and we want to stay that way. The forests in Europe and the functions they have, and also the necessities, are too different for all this to be brought under the auspices of a European forestry policy. But a European forestry strategy, which we are now redefining, is a legitimate attempt to find a common denominator and successfully tackle European challenges. Our forests are under pressure – climate change, declining care and pests are increasing many forests. There is a need for common strategies, and there is also a need for joint research. And the rampant spread of the bark beetle needs a European answer. In addition to protection, the forest – especially the commercial forest – also needs to be exploited. The forestry strategy presented by the Commission remains far too superficial. If forest is to supply building materials such as cement or steel and energy, it must also be used sustainably. Only then can the forest rejuvenate and adapt to climate change. Of course, this does not exclude that there are forests that are protected due to their protective function or their specificity. But the stock of wood has been increasing for years in virtually all Member States of the European Union. That is why we should stop pretending that we are losing our forests in Europe due to overexploitation. We need to use them, then we can make an important contribution and a decisive contribution to a sustainable circular economy.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, drought in some areas of the Mediterranean basin, especially in Italy, has a major impact on agriculture. This is not only a problem for farmers, but also a problem for consumers. Food security in Europe is already at risk due to the war in Ukraine, food prices have been rising for months and it is increasingly clear that harvesting in the European Union this year, especially in the Mediterranean areas, will be lower, creating further problems. It is therefore necessary and urgent to draw up a plan to prevent such phenomena in the future. We must invest in a system of reservoirs and water deposits, trying to use these systems also to produce hydroelectric or otherwise renewable energy. However, agriculture must also learn to save water. We need to invest in research to find systems for efficient use of available water. Precision agriculture, sensors and satellite systems can make an important contribution in this regard. We will also increasingly need plants that are more resistant to drought. Genetic improvement and also the use of new biotechnologies are more necessary than ever and we must finally legislate in this Parliament too to make these technologies applicable in Europe. We also need to make better use of the opportunities of agricultural policy. It is precisely in these weeks that Member States are finishing their work on the CAP Strategic Plans. We must offer farmers efficient systems to insure against adverse weather events, which unfortunately are on the rise. In recent years we have worked and developed innovative systems, as well as mutual funds, which must now be applied. Only a combination of all these elements can lead to a sensitive management of these phenomena in the future.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. I was at the Polish-Ukrainian border about two weeks ago and will be at the Romanian-Ukrainian border in the next few days, and I have to say that the export of bread grains from Ukraine with destination Africa is simply not taking place at the moment. Although grain is exported from Ukraine, as you said, Commissioner, it is almost exclusively feed for the EU market. Less than 150,000 tons of wheat left Ukraine in June. The cause is clear – the concept of solidarity corridors must not be just a logistics concept. The fact is that currently in Ukraine wheat is sold at slingshot prices, because you have to empty the warehouses. The fact is that we have abolished our import tariffs and, of course, there is the legitimate fear of farmers in the border states on the European side, on the EU side, that imports from Ukraine will destroy the domestic market. That is why we need to ensure that wheat is effectively delivered to where it is needed – in the Middle East, in Africa, in the World Food Programme. And I believe that the European Commission must get this off the ground as soon as possible.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. On this Earth, there is a single process in which carbon dioxide is captured, carbon is stored, and oxygen is released back into the atmosphere: This is photosynthesis. Wherever plants, trees, algae breathe, there is also active climate protection. So we have to make sure that plants grow on this earth and that the stored carbon remains stored. Agriculture and forestry play a very important role here. I think we must stop portraying agriculture and forestry as climate sinners all the time, but look at them in a differentiated way, where agriculture and forestry can also make an active positive contribution. Trees must be able to grow, wood must be used, cement and steel must be able to replace. Permanent meadows must be able to grow. Animals that graze stimulate growth, so that meat and milk can be produced sustainably. In the form of carbon farming – I hope we get a proposal quickly – additional humus can be stored in the soil. And that's why, I think, we don't need a lot of new bans and a lot of new rules, we just need meaningful incentives so that agriculture can play its role.

(Start of speech with microphone switched off.) ... Less energy from Russia, more production in the European Union. We probably all agree on the goal. But when I look at the REPowerEU proposal, I still have questions: EUR 7.5 billion will be diverted from the second pillar of the common agricultural policy to build new biogas plants. I wonder: Where do the raw materials come from? Is it appropriate, at a time when we are experiencing painful shortages in the food market, to create incentives for food to be gassed in biogas plants? If so, then a clear cascade principle is needed, food for the table and for the trough, and waste and slurry for the biogas plant. But why do we want to withdraw money from the common agricultural policy? We can finance these investments in exactly the same way under the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. Farmers then benefit from this, and these farms then have an additional income. If we put this money into REPowerEU, then it is clear that it will not benefit our farms, but the major energy suppliers. Then we take the money away from the farmers, and incentives are created for large farms such as ENGIE, E.ON, Enel to invest in businesses that were previously in the hands of farmers. I don't necessarily want to support that.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Of course, if we want to make agriculture sustainable in Europe as a whole, organic farming plays a very important role. Of course not the only one; it is also about making conventional agriculture more sustainable, including through integrated production, for example. But the action plan on organic farming presented by the Commission recognises the central role of the market in the further development of organic farming. Only if people also resort to the organic product and are willing to pay the additional costs that are necessarily incurred in production, then organic agriculture also has a long-term development opportunity. And we can support this: We need to promote organic products that lead people to this buying decision. And then the public sector itself buys a lot of food, for public food in schools, in hospitals. We must create the conditions for relying on regional, high-quality and also organic food. And there are great examples in Europe, where schools, for example, shop high-quality, try to waste less food, and don't spend more money overall than before due to changes in the nutrition plan. We are also in a very sensitive moment at this moment. Food prices are rising across the European Union and the cost of living is rising overall. Many families want or have to look for a way out of this situation and unfortunately then also resort to cheaper food. And the positive market development that we have had for many organic products in recent years is threatening to collapse. This also reduces the incentive for farmers to switch to organic products. Here we must be careful that this difficult moment does not become a longer-term brake for the organic market.

– Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! 43 billion euros. This is how much the Commission's special plan to deal with the supply crisis with chips weighs. With 500 million euros – which, incidentally, are already provided for in the CAP as a crisis reserve, i.e. are already farmers’ money – the Commission now wants to solve the food crisis, which is clearly on our side – as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already said here today. So that means that a missing chip is exactly a hundred times more important than an empty plate, and I am curious to see if the citizens of the European Union will see it that way. Therefore: It is good that the crisis reserve, Commissioner, is being activated, but this can only be a start. It will probably need more money. It's good that our farmers can grow on the ecological priority areas, but it's a drop in the hot stone. It's good that we want to be flexible when it comes to imports, but what we import will ultimately be lacking in other countries. We need to anticipate this supply crisis. We have to make sure that the internal market works, that other things don't happen like with Hungary, where exports are banned. Yesterday we had a meeting in the Agriculture Committee with the Ukrainian Minister of Agriculture. And although there is war in Ukraine, we must do everything we can to ensure that farmers in this country can also produce and grow there. You need, as you said, fuel, pesticides, fertilizer. We now have to buy these means of production and try to deliver them to Ukraine immediately – sowing starts in a few weeks. To do this, we need green corridors from the EU to Ukraine. So we need a real plan. What we do not need, Commissioner, are legislative initiatives by the Commission that further endanger food safety. They can also wait until we get through this crisis. Unfortunately, this will take a few months. So we have to act now. Immediately and decisively.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, imagine a request for a traditional term called 'champagnac' or perhaps 'Portuguese'. Does that sound crazy to you? Honestly, me too. But it does not seem so absurd, otherwise we would not have arrived at this debate that we have here today. Prosecco is not just any denomination in Europe. With 600 million bottles it is the most produced sparkling wine in Europe and the European Union and one of the most important denominations of origin, both in numbers and in value, known all over the world. Is it serious to endanger this denomination with the traditional term? It's not. The Commission should have stopped this attack on Prosecco for years, also because Croatia sincerely, already in the process of entering the European Union, has basically agreed not to claim this name. During a debate in the Committee on Agriculture a few months ago, the representatives of the Commission told us that there is no danger, because they are very different products. This will be true for the Italian market, for the Croatian market, perhaps even for consumers and the European market. But are we sure that a consumer in Tokyo or New York understands that Prošek and Prosecco are two completely different things? I don't think so. I realize that the regulation is unclear, perhaps even superficial, when it allows the coexistence of the traditional term with the designation of origin, and here we must get our hands on it, Commissioner. But if we do not accept this, how can we seriously defend the denominations tomorrow, especially the best known in the world, with the mechanism that you rightly highlighted? The issue could become a precedent for other important denominations, both wine and agri-food. Names, among other things, falsified around the world, which we try to remove from the market, such as fake Prosecco, fake Iberian jamón, fake Bavarian beer. What do we say tomorrow if we accept such a situation ourselves at home? So let's stop this nonsense! It's too dangerous, not only for Prosecco and the denominations as a whole, but I don't think it's good for Prošek either, as the copy is always worse than the original.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Let me give you an example: From Verona to Munich, one of the most important transport axes in Europe runs through the middle of the Alps, right in the middle of the Brenner Pass. This route is used by 2.5 million trucks and 11 million passenger cars per year. 54 million tons of goods are transported here every year, three quarters of them by truck, a quarter of them by rail. And a quarter of these trucks only drive over the Brenner, because the toll costs less there than through Switzerland, where the distance would be on average 100 kilometers shorter. But in Switzerland, on the Gotthard-Transversale, the Modal mix Just the other way around, like the burner. And that's simply because the rail is built there and the road is tolld higher. We, the European Union, are currently building a new rail link at the Brenner. Total cost of line: well over 20 billion euros. Half of it we pay from our EU budget. Do you really think that the rules we want to wave through here will bring a shift to this new rail? No, no! There will be no surcharges on tolls, no mandatory internalisation of environmental costs, there will be a right of veto by states on corridor tolls, there will be general exceptions for concession states, toll discounts for modern trucks. The relocation will not take place. Then we put $20 billion into a project that isn't being used because the road is cheaper. People along the route will continue to suffocate in traffic, and the tunnel will be empty. And it is precisely for this reason that this directive is a bad directive, a result of national vested interests. If we take this a bit seriously with the Green Deal, we should stop this policy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Cancer is an issue that we like to and often displace, but when it hits us or our families, it unfortunately becomes the most important thing in our lives. And because we repress, we often do not think about how we can prevent this terrible disease on a daily basis: through more exercise, by abstaining from tobacco and also through healthy, balanced and high-quality nutrition. High-quality food – enjoyed in diversity and not overly enjoyed – is therefore particularly important. This is where alcoholic beverages come into play: Wine, beer, even spirits. And one thing is clear: Excessive consumption of alcohol is not only a major problem in terms of cancer, but is also harmful to our health overall and, unfortunately, often fatal. Excessive alcohol consumption is harmful, just as too much sugar is harmful and too much meat is harmful. At the same time, moderate consumption of high-quality wines and beers has been part of the diet in many of our Member States for many centuries and is part of our lifestyle. And we shouldn't talk people out of the glass of wine for lunch or the holiday beer. We should acknowledge that wine, beer and spirits are part of our culture, that hundreds of thousands of families in Europe work in vineyards, wineries, breweries and distilleries and strive to produce quality food every day. I therefore ask you to support these amendments. It's not about lobbying, it's not about dilution. It is simply a question of us being able to advocate for moderate consumption. Prohibition policy has never brought us anything.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The welfare of animals, whether in agriculture or domestic animals, is a task of our society. And that is why, I believe, this report is important. We have to ask ourselves: Where are we today? And what else needs to be improved? Animal welfare begins where animals are kept, i.e. on our farms, but it also goes far beyond that. Animals must be properly transported and properly slaughtered. So we have to look at the entire supply chain, especially if we are thinking of introducing new labels in Europe. But animal welfare, as previous speakers have also said, is often associated with costs, with investments in buildings, in facilities, and these costs must not simply be left to the farmers. It is a bit too easy if the trade demands more animal welfare, invents standards itself, presses them on the farmers and thus advertises them to the consumer, but then is not willing to price these conditions at the retail price. And the same is not true if the consumer demands more animal welfare and then wants meat for two euros and drinking milk for 50 cents. We have to take care of one thing: If we simply impose the costs on the farmers, the little ones will suffer before the big ones. Those who have 1 000 cows or 10 000 pigs often find it easier to implement higher standards than those who have five, ten or 50 cows. That is why we need usable, feasible, affordable standards with which even small businesses, especially in disadvantaged areas, can compete. Otherwise, the shot could backfire. If new rules only continue to encourage farm concentration, it will harm our agriculture, our environment – and animals will not benefit from it.

Madam President, Dear Commissioner! Dear colleagues! If animals have to be transported – and sometimes you have to – then they have the right to be transported properly. And on that, I think, the European Union has, we have no progressive legislation, and many pictures, which we unfortunately see again and again in the press on bad transports, would not exist if the national and local authorities would simply do their job and better control animal transports. Animal transport is controlled. We need a uniform approach in Europe. bad dumping-Transports belong uncovered, stopped and also sanctioned. We cannot allow serious transporters – and they are still the vast majority – to come under increasing pressure because others work cheaper and poorly. This has also been made very clear by many in the committee. And this good transport is also in the interest of the farmers. The poor transport is sometimes blamed on the farmers, so to speak, although they actually have little to do with it. I think we have worked well in this committee. I would like to thank the Chair of the ANIT Committee and the rapporteurs for this. We have found a compromise that, if implemented, will improve transport, but will continue to make it possible and also take into account the needs of animal breeders and transporters. We have the situation in Europe that transports are longer - on the edge of the European Union, on islands, where transports must also take place on ships. And, of course, one must try to prevent the transport of slaughter cattle in particular by slaughtering them as close to the place as possible. But we also have to be a bit honest: It's not always possible. We have also destroyed some slaughterhouses through excessive regulations, and we must also build a new infrastructure here again. We have found a good compromise; I will support this compromise. I will support anything that restores the original compromise. And I will not support anything that will call this compromise into question.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, What would have happened in the last two years if we had not produced enough food for our citizens in Europe? If, as with semiconductor chips, we had been dependent on raw materials, whether third countries supply us with food or perhaps not? Luckily, we have been making sure that our European farmers produce food for us for decades with a genuine European policy. And they do so despite the fact that, by the way, they earn significantly less on average than the average of the population, and despite the fact that they are repeatedly subjected to criticism, which is also unjustified here. Now we are reforming this CAP; Not for the first time, it has always been adapted to the signs of the times, and to those who say here today that we are hardly taking any steps towards sustainability, I must say that in the next few years we will spend 10 billion euros every year on sustainability projects in the first pillar alone. In addition, there are the second pillar agri-environmental programmes. But a farm is not only sustainable if it is ecologically sustainable; It also has to be economical, which is just as important. Agricultural policy is not only environmental policy, it is also economic policy. That is why we will redistribute 10% of the money from the larger companies to the smaller ones, so that they also have a chance. We must finally adjust payments to the Member States. Why would anyone get more today just because they had a cow or a sheep 20 years ago? That's just nonsense. And we still need a strong rural policy to make agriculture possible everywhere in the Union, even where it is difficult. We have a new model which now spans the entire CAP and which gives States more responsibility, and I really hope that the States will also assume this responsibility. I would like to thank everyone who has worked with us over the past three and a half years for coming to this conclusion – and many of them have done so. That is why we should vote in favour of this reform today and thus give farmers in Europe security for this decade.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, methane is an efficient, unfortunately very efficient greenhouse gas, and yes, reduction is of course an important goal. But I think the debate we are having here must also be based on scientific facts. That's why you have to look at: Where does methane come from? Does it come from animals? When it comes from animals, does it come from farm animals or does it come from wild animals, which are also present in nature, or does it come from other factors such as methane gas used for energy? As I have said several times in this debate: Fortunately, methane is mined in our atmosphere in 10 to 12 years. So it is a matter of looking at whether the livestock is being increased. If it is not replenished, then this methane is in an approximately twelve-year cycle. And the increase in livestock, which unfortunately has also taken place in the world, is taking place mainly outside the European Union. If you look at how animal populations have changed in the last ten years, then in some parts of the world, but not in the European Union, the livestock populations have really exploded, and this is certainly where we have to start. But I think you also have to think that we only see methane on our own. It should also be borne in mind that animals use grass, that animals use permanent grassland, that permanent grassland in particular is also a very important factor for photosynthesis, so that CO2 – another important greenhouse gas – can be reabsorbed and carbon can be bound with it. So yes, you have to deal with it. But no, when it comes only to demonizing animal husbandry, meat or milk consumption.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Food is important for our survival, for our health, for our well-being. Food is not only energy, but also enjoyment, especially when it is of high quality. Now we have a strategy and, Commissioner, you said it, that strategy must then be transformed into legislation. And as soon as we get proposals for it, we expect a proper impact assessment. But I also think, having listened to the debate here, that once again we did not talk about the Farm to Fork strategy. We talked about the farm. We are always stuck in agriculture. We are not talking about the responsibility of the industry; we are not talking about the responsibility of trade; We don't talk much about the responsibility of the customer. If the strategy is already called "farm to fork", then we should talk about "farm to fork" and not only about "farm". We must also stop perpetually denouncing agriculture and farmers on this continent. Yes, there are things that need to be improved. But there are also hundreds of thousands of farmers who do an excellent job every day, who know how to produce food and do so sustainably. Because I can guarantee you: The farmers are the first to think sustainably and see that they pass on their land properly to the next generation. Only if we succeed in finding a common approach here will we be able to inspire young people for agriculture. If we do not come with this know-it-all that I sometimes hear in this house, but simply try to go a new way with farmers, then we will ultimately be successful. Then we will also inspire young people to enter agriculture. And if we don't succeed, then everything we do here is wasted love effort anyway.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The Commission presented its Farm to Fork strategy almost a year and a half ago, and we have worked very hard here in this House in recent months to find a report, an answer to this strategy. And I would like to begin by thanking my co-rapporteur Anja Hazekamp and the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups for the very intensive work and also for the constructive cooperation that we have had here in recent months. I think that when it comes to this and when the goal is to make the food chain in Europe as a whole higher quality and to make nutrition more balanced and also healthier, then we find a great deal of agreement here. But unfortunately the strategy presented by the Commission – although it aims to look at the entire food chain from farmer to table – very often remains stuck in agriculture. All numerical reduction targets – wherever one has really set numerical targets – concern agriculture, and indeed there would be many things in the whole chain – I am thinking of trade, I am also thinking of consumers – where one could also set much more concrete targets. I am thinking, for example, of the distribution of value added along the chain, where it is very clear that agriculture is coming under increasing pressure and trade is cutting out the increasingly larger part. But still: It goes without saying that reduction targets are also important and correct in agriculture – when it comes to plant protection products, when it comes to fertilisers, when it comes to antibiotics. We need alternatives to what is happening today. For us to have alternatives, we need research and development. And these alternatives must also be available in agriculture. A balance needs to be struck between food safety, security of supply on the one hand, and the pursuit of greater sustainability on the other. I believe that the COVID-19 crisis of recent months, of the last year and a half, has shown the importance of food sovereignty on our continent and in the European Union. Let me say something very clear here: Since the beginning of this year, the Commission has had at its disposal a study commissioned by itself and carried out by the Commission's Joint Research Centre. This study dealt precisely with this question, and obviously the results of this study in the Commission did not suit everyone. This study, although we have asked several times, has not been published by August of this year, and I think that, Commissioner, is a gross foul. This is not the way to deal with Parliament. I can't do that. If we want to discuss honestly and transparently, then we must have all the facts on the table. That was not the case in this case. I am also really sorry that part of this House has refused to discuss this incident in more detail in this House. I think transparency is not only good if it fits into everyone's concept. But still: We have mentioned many things in our work, in our report – many things from the point of view of agriculture, the link with the common agricultural policy, the question: How can sustainability be brought to agriculture as a whole, not only with organic farming, but also? What is the role of integrated crop protection, for example? – all things that are important to achieve our contribution to climate objectives. But above all, there is a very important element, and that is the consumer. The consumer will ultimately decide with his purchasing decisions whether this strategy will be successful. Every day, as soon as he goes to the supermarket, he decides what he buys and how he leads this strategy to success.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Gentiloni! The recent events we have just discussed, the Pandora Papers, have shown very clearly how urgently we need to take action when it comes to tax fraud, evasion, abuse and even tax optimization. In the area of corporate taxation, further restrictions are needed, especially for larger, internationally active companies, which exploit differences and deviations in individual tax systems in order to pay as little tax as possible. This practice is unfair. Above all, it harms small and medium-sized enterprises, which we always want to defend. This is because they cannot simply move the tax domicile to a place where less taxes are incurred. And they don't have the chance to create any sophisticated control structures. The Code of Conduct for Business Taxation remains an important instrument of the European Union to prevent precisely these harmful tax practices. I believe – and I fully agree with you, Commissioner – that the Code needs to be revised and modernised. Globalization, digitalization, and the increasing importance of intangible assets are opening doors to new opportunities for evasion and optimization, and this has nothing to do with fairness. This is not about preventing legal tax competition between states, and this is important to my group, but simply about implementing a responsible tax policy in the European Union. Nor do we support an unrestricted extension of the scope of the Code of Conduct to include income and wealth tax on a flat-rate basis. The Code of Conduct Working Group has done a good job so far. It now needs to be further developed and the code itself needs to be further developed. In this sense, my group will also support the report, and I would like to thank the rapporteur very warmly for the good cooperation over the last few weeks and months.

Madam President, What you have come to know in recent days under the title Pandora Papers demonstrates the importance of the work we have been doing here for years, including in the FISC special committee. Immediately afterwards, we will discuss a report on tax optimisation and tax evasion in the European Union, which I myself worked on. Of course, it must also be said that the mere fact that someone invests money abroad is not a crime in and of itself, as long as it is not proven that this is considered tax evasion. That's why we shouldn't make hasty convictions in the Pandora Papers, which are still up to the courts. In my opinion, however, the situation is explosive if someone illegally or on the fringes of the law collects money from the EU budget and then invests tax-free in tax havens. Andrej Babiš, the Czech Prime Minister, who collects subsidies in the mid-double-digit million range from the EU Agricultural Fund every year, seems to have had to repay at least 11 million euros at the moment because they have been obtained unjustly, and has now apparently invested part of this money in tax havens. This is, in my opinion, double theft. This is first theft to the European Union and then theft to one's own taxpayers and to one's own citizens, whom he presides over, where he does not pay the taxes. We also have to think about this in our own legislation on the common agricultural policy. It is not possible for our agricultural funds to be handled in this way.